TRADE UNION BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 7 May 1927, Page 3

TRADE UNION BILL

(Australian Press Association it Sun.] LONDON, May 0.. All the naileries ware crowded for the final day' of the Trade Union Hill debate. Long queues in the lobbies vainly tried to obtain tickets. Mr Snowden said ordinarily lie was not disposed to provocative language and invective, but lie confessed lie felt restraint most difficult in dealing with tho present bill. .Sir J>. Hogg had shown he was either ignorant of tho provisions or the clauses had been deliberately ambiguously drafted in order that magistrates might interpret them in accordance with their own prejudices. Mr link!win told them last year’s events and the prevention of general strikes were a iiikiulate for tho bill but even a legal luminary like Sir J. Simon was not sure whether it made afl sympathetic strikes illegal. Those with practical experience did not doubt it did. “The bill makes it a criminal offence to coerce the Government,” sai c | Mr Snowden. What do governments exist for except to be coerced. Jt is the opposition’s duty to coerce and harness governments. J can imagine only two cin winstanccs in which a general strike would succeed. First, if the Government entered war obviously against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people; secondly, where governments sought without mandate to pass a measure against the wishes of a great majority of the people. Do you think a declaration that a general strike is illegal is going to prevent one. (>! course not. All your pains and penalties will not have the .slightest effect, flow are you going to deal with live million strikers, firing them all to law courts.”

Conservative interieetor: "Take the leaders first. 'Mr Snowden: "The bill says nothing about dealing with the leaders. '1 lie bill will not prevent general strikes, but will prolong thorn if they occur, Tlioro cannot bo imagined anything more likely to promote a general strike than the hill n» in his famous declaration last year. Sir J. Simon told them the general strike is at present ill. Sir I>. ITogg quoted Lord Astbnry's judgment to the same effect. Why in tho name of common sense arouse such bitterness and turn the country into a cauldron of political controversy, merely in order to declare the existing state law. 'I he only reason lor the bill is the diehard Conservatires have forced it on the Government. Hogg told us the inclusion of employers would he useless and inequitable. I agree no language in any act can place workers and employers on equal footing. The employeers have thousands of means of coercion at their disposal which legislation does not affect.. They can close down the works, go slfoyt lime, and dismiss men without, reason. The industrial history of Britain furnished no more

glaring instance of organised coercion of tho Government that the Mine

Owners Association practised last year. Would to God the Government instead of throwing this apple of discord had provided machinery to settle disputes by reason, instead of force. Hut the bill will be forced through. It will cost tho country more than the general strike.

IN THE COMMONS*. LONDON, May 5. Mr dynes asked Mr Baldwin to allow more time to the Trade l nion Bill second reading. Five hundred members are in constant attendance, and only thirty-four have spoken including fifteen Labourites. Mr Baldwin replied he had tried to meet the Labourites wishes by the allocution of four days to the second reading. Whilst there was evidence many members wished to speak, there was no evidence that an equal number desired to listen.

Mr dynes further requested for an extension of the committee stages.

Alt* Baldwin pointed out that the Government hacl postponed the second reading till after Easter at Air AlaeDonald’s request. Members bail bad a mont'h in which to prepare amendments.

LONDON, May <j. Ab- Wheatley said: “In response to Air Baldwin's appeal for the creation of an atmosphere in which we might secure industrial peace by negotiations, the Labourites responded to the extent of facing humiliation. Their reward is a bill designed to secure peace not by Denotation, but by police, law courts, and prisons. It is one of the most shameful actions of .British statesmen.” Mr Hilton Young welcomed the bill as clarifying the law as to general strikes and enlarging workers’ liberty. Mr Thomas said the bill destroyed all hopes of industrial peace. Millions of decent trade unionists resented it, chiefly because they believed it was a mean and miserable attempt by a Government elected bv a fraudulent letter. Mr Lloyd George challenged the wisdom of introducing such a challenging, provocative hill at the present time. Doubtless the trade union law needed amendment and clarification, but the bill only muddled old obscurities anti created new ones. Almost every strike in any large industry could be held under the bill, as an attempt at pressure on the Government. It was the most unwise step possible to introduce it, when we are struggling hard to recover lost trade, which was only possible by means of whole-hearted cooperation between employers and workmen. The Bill went far beyond Sir Douglas Hogg’s introductory prepositions. It used the imperfections of the trade union law. in order to create injustice. The bill did not deal with real needs. There was no real demand for it, even from the employers. 1 hey might impound the trade union or the political funds; but it would not make the workers work mom efficiently. The latter depended on goodwill. Some of the largest captains of industry were opposed to the bill, root and blanch, as prejudicial to industrial peace, yet the Government, forgetting our need for trade recovery, introduced the bill purely for the recovery of loryism. In liis speech on the Trade l flion Bill, Mr J. H. Thomas(Labour) said “ If you believe that this Bill will prevent men from striking, you are deceiving yourselves. The country will not thank you for it. 1 only wish that you had the courage to test it. \ou have abused your majority, and you have struck a blow at industrial peace, AYe will carry this fight into the country and we will win. lit. Hon. Sir Thomas Inskip, K.C..

(Conservative), > n replying to the debate, was bombarded with interjections when he reiterated that the Bill would improve workers’ conditions. Replying to Mr P. Snowdon’s reference to the impossibility of imprisoning five million strikers, he said:— “Does not Mr Snowden know that the law is not administered by tbe police, but l>y‘the law-abiding character of the race? ” . i He added that the fundamental principle of the Bill was whether the interests of the Trade Unionists or those of the whole country should prevail. If there were ambiguities in the Bill’s wording these could be corrected in Committee. Sir D. Hogg (Attorney-General) moved the closure. The closure was carried by 383 votes to 168. y The Conservatives and the Labourites voted strictly on party lines. The Liberals were split, seven of them vot-

ing with the Conservatives and nineteen voting with Labour. Sir J. Simon (Liberal) abstaned from voting. Mr dynes’ amendments and bis motion for the rejection of the Bill wei's defeated by .'lß.'i votes to 171. After this the second reading was agreed to. For the Committee stage oi the Ibll shoals of amendments were lodged immediately after the division. The Liberals and Labourites are responsible for nearly g‘o amendments. The Labourites will move to omit each clause in turn, and alternatively to postpone the dates on which the proposals shall become operative. Sixteen Lnionists have also given notice of amendments to include lockouts as well as strikes. LONDON. .May d.

In the House of Commons, Mr Churchill (Chancellor of the Lxeoliequer) was asked if lie was aware that Mr Mellon (Secretary of the I'nitcd States Treasury! had repeated bis statement that Britain was receiving from tin* Allied countries more than she was paving to America, which statement, said the questioner, bad done great harm to British interest in France and Italy.

In reply. Mr Churchill said: “'I here is nothing that we can do more than what we have already done." Ihe reply bad obtained great publicity, which had been regrettable Irom some points of view, but be could not see bow in the circumstances they could have avoided taking the steps they did The world must he the final judge.’'

AN AMENDMENT. LONDON. May 0

The Attorney-General gave notice of tin ninondtnoiu to the Trades Union Bill in the committee stage, declaring an illegal lockout designed to inflict hardship on Hie ('immunity.